"A Planet without Laughter" by Raymond Smullyan

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Perhaps you could describe how you picture something that is part of something else (that doesn't yet exist) creating that something else.

A gas cloud collapses due to gravity and forms a new star. The disk of debris around it forms a system of planets and moons. The matter, its energy, gravity, etc predating the new solar system are still very much within it, even after having created the system.

That's not an example of creation; that's just inanimate stuff doing what it was designed and constructed and programmed to do. You've jumped in in the middle. The actual creation -- the design and construction and programming of the overall environment and the critical elements within it (time, space, matter, energy, physical laws, etc) -- took place before the events you describe and is the thing that needs description.

I hope you can see that examples from nature aren't going to work here, because it's the origin of such natural things that is under dispute. My answer to all such examples will be the same: they were designed and constructed and programmed to operate as you describe by a Creator you haven't mentioned. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. But more examples from an already operational nature won't help. What would help is an example where the creator (or lack thereof) and the means of creation were both known and undisputed. Then we could extrapolate from there.

But that's the problem, isn't it. Nothing we creators make is ever made the evolutionary way: it's always the concept-design-construction paradigm that we employ. Which means, as I've pointed out elsewhere, that you're asking me to believe that we work one way whenever we want to get something done, but nature works the opposite way -- even when "she" is unintentionally "creating" beings like us!

I find that thought incredible (ie, unbelievable). That random mutations and unguided filtering could ever produce, from purely inanimate materials, conscious beings that specialize in creationist ways of getting things done -- beings who compose music, and write books, and paint pictures, and laugh, and love, and cry, and hope, and dream, and pray -- is simply fantastic (as in, "a fantasy"); and absurd (as in, absurd). You ask too much.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Gerry, would it work for you if the creation act were just moved back a little farther; in other words, instead of God directly creating and designing a tree or a turtle, he created the laws of nature, and then we had evolution as part of the program he developed?  Evolution, despite its lack of aesthetic appeal to you, is simply supported by the fossil record and genetics.  But that does not have to be inconsistent with a creator God who programmed the entire cosmos to run in a particular way.  Even many non-believers think that the cosmos is some sort of virtual reality program that is running in a prescribed manner.  I think it's the insistence that a human was specifically designed and manufactured as a opposed to evolving over millions of years that has everyone at your throat.  There are simply to many of the experts that agree with evolution compared with the relatively few that hold the modern creationist model.

[jumbojak]

I'm pretty sure that Michael Behe is not a person of subnormal intelligence, and I'm pretty sure he writes without any intent to deceive. Ditto for scores of other creationist scientists whose works I've studied.

But you said you hadn't actually read anything by Michael Behe:

Regarding microbiology, try Michael Behe. I haven't read him myself (except for bits and pieces quoted here and there), but I hear he's very good.

Aside from those bits and pieces of course. And now you're saying you've "studied" his work. Or did you just drop Behe's name while meaning you studied other people's work? Or is all your studying just hearsay?

[Niya]

Gerry, have you looked at the DNA evidence, genetic markers I mentioned earlier?

That article is really very awkward and poor Gerry. It fails to mention or identify that we have Genetic markers belonging to more than a single couple as we dig into DNA. We have mitochondrial DNA that effectively proves more than a single ancestor. This is no assumption, this is pure evidence Gerry. We have more than a single couple dna. So it is beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Infact the bottle neck being reference was atleast 3000 persons at its minimum and around 12000 at max. But it was never in single digits, nor the genepool could afford it to bring out the diverse human beings on this planet.

And to be honest, there is nothing wrong with making an assumption as long as we have merit to make one. The only assumption which is not acceptable is the one which has no spine to back it up. In this case particular, we not only have merited assumption (which is not arbitrary at all) regarding the bottle neck size but we have evidence of more than a single pair in our DNA, it is proof in it self and that kind of makes the bottleneck quite insignificant.

Comments?

[Niya]

My objections to the evolution paradigm, all based on first-hand experiences, are many; I'll give you four:

First, the process is utterly foreign to me. I understand (and have fruitfully employed) the concept-design-creation paradigm to add new facts to reality in every area of my life since I was a child; this post is itself an example. But I haven't seen a single example of the proposed random-mutation-natural-selection paradigm being used to create new information in any field; nobody uses it for anything useful.

On the contrary modern medicine and genetic research are all at heart because of evolutionary studies. It is not only helpful its impact is immense. You should read this paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" by evolutionary biologist and a Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

Secondly, I find the creationist paradigm simpler and thus more likely true. As simple as possible, in fact, but no simpler.

Simplicity may be a pre-requisite for a belief system it is simply not for science.

Thirdly, I find the evolutionary paradigm not just intellectually unsatisfying, but emotionally and aesthetically lacking as well.

I find its awesome, it just shows how majestic and beautiful the whole thing really is.

Fourthly, the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years.

Like what? I don't find that at all.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

But you said you hadn't actually read anything by Michael Behe:

I haven't read his book, but I've read various things he's written on the internet; mostly replies to evolutionists. I find him anything but an "idiot" and a "liar".

And now you're saying you've "studied" his work. Or did you just drop Behe's name while meaning you studied other people's work? Or is all your studying just hearsay?

Sometimes a random sampling of someone's work can be quite revealing. That's what the book I mentioned at the top of this thread is all about (Donald Knuth's Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About  -- http://www.amazon.com/dp/157586326X ). It's certainly enough to decide if someone is an idiot or not.

[jumbojak]

But you said you hadn't actually read anything by Michael Behe:

I haven't read his book, but I've read various things he's written on the internet; mostly replies to evolutionists. I find him anything but an "idiot" and a "liar".

And now you're saying you've "studied" his work. Or did you just drop Behe's name while meaning you studied other people's work? Or is all your studying just hearsay?

Sometimes a random sampling of someone's work can be quite revealing. That's what the book I mentioned at the top of this thread is all about (Donald Knuth's Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About  -- http://www.amazon.com/dp/157586326X ). It's certainly enough to decide if someone is an idiot or not.

So, have you actually studied any creationist authors in depth, or is it all a random sampling on your part? You didn't answer the question Gerry.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

You should read this paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" by evolutionary biologist and a Christian, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

No need to rehash what's wrong with that idea here. See https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/nothing-in-biology-makes-sense-except-in-the-light-of-evolution-myth-evalutation/ for objections similar to my own.

Simplicity may be a pre-requisite for a belief system it is simply not for science.

On the contrary, the scientist must have a belief system in place to even get started. And a lot of faith in various things. Think about it:

Broadly speaking, we have four different sources of information at our disposal. Bottom-to-top, they are: experience, reason, authority, and revelation.

Experiential (or experimental) evidences are gathered, with varying degrees of precision, every time someone says, "I wonder what will happen when we do this" -- and then proceeds to actually find out. This sort of thing, executed with persnickety attention to detail, is the heart of the scientific method. Note that we accept experimental evidence based on our faith in a uniform and consistent universe -- that tomorrow will be a lot like today (which is a very difficult thing to prove).

Evidences from reason are the result of logical transformations applied to previously acquired data. "If a man is bigger than a dog, and a dog is bigger than a flea, then a man must be bigger than a flea." Great leaps are possible with reason, but great errors are possible as well. That?s why conclusions reached by reason should be tested by experiment whenever possible. "Show me," as they say in Missouri. Note that we accept evidence from reason based on our faith in the existence of a rational universe, not to mention the existence of rational minds able to digest it. Note also that belief in reason is not a reasonable thing -- it?s a premise, not a conclusion. But it is a good idea. "I think, therefore I am [able to get off square one]!"

Evidences from authority are provided by those who have gone before us and have gathered significant bodies of evidence from both reason and experiment. I include historical evidences in this category. "The guy with the missing foot over there says we should never cut with the tip of a chainsaw. And I?m inclined to accept him as an authority on the matter." Evidences from authority are essential because no man lives long enough to start from scratch; but they are also dangerous because they tend to propagate former errors. "That guy?s mother says we should never use chainsaws at all. Ever." Note that we accept evidence from authority based on our faith in a uniform, consistent, rational universe, as above, plus our faith in the integrity and rationality of our forebears.

Which brings us to revealed evidence -- evidence that is thrust into the natural universe from without. Like when the author of an adventure story tells one of the characters -- perhaps in a dream or a vision -- that there is Glory beyond the Great Sea. This kind of information is the most precious, of course, since it can?t be acquired in any natural way; but it is the most difficult to substantiate, since it typically can?t be verified by the usual means. Very few cross the Great Sea and come back to tell the tale. Note that we accept revealed knowledge based on our faith in a benevolent Creator who wants to reveal Himself and His works to His creatures. This faith, unfortunately, is less common than the other faiths I?ve mentioned.

I find [the evolutionary paradigm] awesome [not emotionally and aesthetically lacking], it just shows how majestic and beautiful the whole thing really is.

Until something bad happens and someone needs comfort or hope as in my example (about Rebecca and her family and her song) above. What does the evolutionary paradigm have to offer the suffering? the dying?

Like what? I don't find that [the evolutionary paradigm is diametrically opposed to every intuitive perception I have developed (and have found reliable) over the years] at all.

Like the fact that in almost every case where something appears to me to be designed, and I'm able to ascertain exactly how that thing came to be, it turns out that the thing actually was designed. I'm talking about human artifacts here, of course, because it's only in those cases that we can ascertain exactly how they came to be. But an intuition that works so well in almost every case where it can be checked is not likely to mislead me in the majority of cases where I can't check.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

So, have you actually studied any creationist authors in depth, or is it all a random sampling on your part? You didn't answer the question Gerry.

Yes, I've read lots of Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul, etc; Henry, Chaffer, Chesterton, Lewis, Bevan, McCosh, Mansell, Sayers, etc; Newton, Brown, Berlinski, Dembski, Batten, Knuth, Carter, Catchpoole, Hartnett, Harwood, Mason, Sarfati, Silvestru, Walker, Carter; and many, many others, all the way through. What's the point?

[Crow]

It's certainly enough to decide if someone is an idiot or not.

Like this?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1335354839/art-for-the-rest-of-us

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Gerry, would it work for you if the creation act were just moved back a little farther; in other words, instead of God directly creating and designing a tree or a turtle, he created the laws of nature, and then we had evolution as part of the program he developed?

Funny you should ask; I woke up this morning thinking specifically about simulating this "middle ground" on my computer. So I got out my favorite programming language (www.osmosian.com) and went to work. And my simulation of random mutation and natural selection actually worked! Here are the details.

I started by defining a viable organism as a thing with three parts (an operation code and two operands) that would actually execute on my virtual machine. The op codes were numbers representing ADD, SUBTRACT, and MULTIPLY operations (I left out division to avoid difficulties with division by zero); the operands were simply numbers.

I then defined a mutation process where random bits in the organisms were changed at a certain rate. Some such mutations would, of course, be (a) harmless, changing the numbers (but not the op code) in an organism, which would make it produce a different output value, but would not cause it to fail or do something truly new; others would be (b) harmful, changing the op code to something invalid, which would make the organism no longer viable; and still others would be (c) beneficial, changing the op code from ADD to SUBTRACT or to MULTIPLY, which would introduce greater variety in the population.

Finally, I defined a selection process that eliminated non-viable organisms while allowing viable organisms to reproduce (make copies of themselves at a certain rate).

I started it up (with just a single organism that knew how to ADD) and let it run. Unfortunately, there were failures at first: depending on the mutation and reproduction rates, I would either get a population that quickly died out altogether, or a population that grew so fast it would overwhelm the machine and crash. But after carefully adjusting the mutation-to-fertility ratio, I found that starting with just a single organism, the system could produce a reasonably stable population of thousands of viable -- and note this -- varied organisms (ie, not just adders, but subtractors and multipliers as well). Random mutation and natural selection at work! Amazing.

Then I sat back and thought about what I had done. Three things immediately came to mind: (1) The system didn't design itself; I did that. (2) The system didn't code itself; I did that. (3) The system didn't tune itself; I did that. I also had some suspicions that the system wouldn't scale well: it would require a prodigious amount of additional design, coding, and precise tuning if I wanted the system to produce anything resembling a bacterium, much less a human being; in short, it was obvious that there are much easier ways of achieving such ends at any level of complexity.

So where does this little "thought experiment" leave me? Pretty much where I started, though perhaps with a little more empathy for theistic evolutionists -- but note that I've always allowed for the possibility that they may be right (though the artist and engineer and mathematician in me tend to think that kind of inefficient design unworthy of the Creator I've come to know and love). Of course I still don't see how non-theistic evolution is a viable alternative: that a system with the required complexity and fine-tuning could itself arise by chance is simply beyond my ability to conceive. And so I'm back to special creation (with perhaps some minor "evolutionary variations" -- coat colorings, beak lengths, etc -- as decoration). And I think that's a perfectly reasonable view given the uncontested historical (not pre-historical) and other kinds of data available to me. Note that I'm not saying I'm right -- I'm just saying that one doesn't have to be an idiot or a liar to hold such view.

[Recusant]

...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

Tank, that post was definitely out of bounds. You do a lot of work here, and certainly deserve respect and consideration for that (not to mention that I think you're a fine person in your own right), but we all agreed to engage in civil discourse by becoming members of HAF.

When somebody like Gerry Rzeppa comes here to discuss his ideas with us, I think it's important to maintain that standard, because if nothing else, personalizing the discussion as you've done above can be a distraction from the more effective arguments against his position.

Among other things, the civility rule is meant to protect every member's ability to participate in discussions here without having to face such unproductive personal comments. I don't think that Gerry Rzeppa's arguments for Creationism deserve to be treated respectfully, but as a member of this site he's covered by the rules just as much as any other member.

I suppose that this post could be in red type, but since as far as I know it's the first moderation note addressed to you, there's no need to escalate to that level here.

[Tank]

...there is not one single lab anywhere on Earth using creationism to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever.

On the contrary; there is not a single lab anywhere on Earth using the evolutionary paradigm to develop any new concept or theory that benefits humanity in any way whatsoever. Every lab that has ever developed anything that benefits humanity has employed the creationist paradigm: Individuals conceive ideas, design experiments, develop products. In that order. A thoroughly top-down, creationist way of doing things. It's how the world (including the entire scientific enterprise) works.

Hey, look! I just used that same creationist paradigm to create this post. As you did, when you replied to my previous post. It's inescapable. If you want to get anything done at all, you're going to have to think, speak, and act like a creationist.

Gerry I take it all back. You're as thick as shit. You appear to be capable of stringing words together in quite a superficially clever way while completely failing to understand that what you're producing is utter drivel. You're playing pigeon chess Gerry.

Tank, that post was definitely out of bounds. You do a lot of work here, and certainly deserve respect and consideration for that (not to mention that I think you're a fine person in your own right), but we all agreed to engage in civil discourse by becoming members of HAF.

When somebody like Gerry Rzeppa comes here to discuss his ideas with us, I think it's important to maintain that standard, because if nothing else, personalizing the discussion as you've done above can be a distraction from the more effective arguments against his position.

Among other things, the civility rule is meant to protect every member's ability to participate in discussions here without having to face such unproductive personal comments. I don't think that Gerry Rzeppa's arguments for Creationism deserve to be treated respectfully, but as a member of this site he's covered by the rules just as much as any other member.

I suppose that this post could be in red type, but since as far as I know it's the first moderation note addressed to you, there's no need to escalate to that level here.

You are of course quite right and I apologise unreservedly to you, the other staff, forum members and Gerry. I will in future not personalise my comments.

[Gerry Rzeppa]

Here's the Plain English code for my little "Random Mutation and Natural Selection Simulation" described above in case anyone is interested in that kind of thing:

An organism is a thing with an op code and a first operand and a second operand.

The population is some organisms.

To run:
Bang in a big way.
Evolve.
Maximize entropy.

To bang in a big way:
Start up.
Seed the random number generator.
Create an organism.

To create an organism:
Allocate memory for the organism.
Put 1 [add] into the organism's op code.
Append the organism to the population.

To evolve:
Randomly mutate.
Naturally select.
Add 1 to the generation count.
If the generation count is less than 5000, repeat.
Report.

The generation count is a number.

To randomly mutate:
Get an organism from the population.
If the organism is nil, exit.
Pick a random number between 1 and 255.
Pick a number between 1 and 4.
If the number is 1, put the random number into the organism's op code.
If the number is 2, put the random number into the organism's first operand.
If the number is 3, put the random number into the organism's second operand.
Repeat.

To naturally select:
Get an organism from the population (backwards).
If the organism is nil, exit.
If the organism is dead, repeat.
If we don't feel like making a baby organism, repeat.
Make the baby organism from the organism.
Repeat.

To decide if an organism is living:
If the organism's op code is 1 [add], say yes.
If the organism's op code is 2 [subtract], say yes.
If the organism's op code is 3 [multiply], say yes.
Say no.

To decide if we do feel like making a baby organism:
Pick a number between 1 and 100.
If the number is less than 12, say yes.
Say no.

To make a baby organism from a parent organism:
Allocate memory for the baby organism.
Put the parent's op code into the baby's op code.
Append the baby organism to the population.

To maximize entropy:
Destroy the population.
Shut down.

I left out the reporting routines because they're just a bunch of counting and number formatting stuff, but the results on the screen for a typical run look like this:

generations=5,000   total organisms=123,144   living=2,329   dead=120,815   adders=794   subtractors=800   multipliers=735

[Ecurb Noselrub]

So where does this little "thought experiment" leave me? Pretty much where I started, though perhaps with a little more empathy for theistic evolutionists --

So your own program established the possibility of evolution, and you, as you surely would agree, are not nearly as intelligent as God.  Imagine what his program, his laws, could accomplish.  Why would God put together a universe that operated this way?  Maybe building in this struggle for life is the best way to develop beings such as us who have a moral sense.  "In this world you will have tribulation."  Maybe God enjoys observing the elegance of his own program.  Time is not an issue for him.  Watching a program develop for 13.5 billion years is the same to him as 6000 years, right?  "A day is to the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 

So, if the vast majority of scientists today accept evolution and an old universe, why should that be an obstacle to the existence of a creator God?  If you really wanted to find common ground, you would accept the elegance of Darwinian evolution, which is supported by the evidence, and maintain your faith in a creator God.  Evolution, an old earth, and an old universe have nothing to do with the gospel or Jesus or the resurrection.  The only thing you have to adjust is your interpretation of some scripture.  And the scripture is flexible enough to accommodate evolution, as long as you are not hyper-literalistic with your hermeneutics. Evolution is not a necessary "hill upon which to die", and you are compromising nothing by accepting it.